He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

"To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified."- from the Desanaa Sutta

Having worked for many years as a government employee in maternity wards, antenatal clinics, birth suites as a counsellor, I often found difficulty in working with what is legal in this country (Australia) and keeping the Precepts. I found the best way was to provide a patient requesting abortion information with information on abortion clinics, foster care, and adoption without showing a preference or an antipathy towards any of the options. The decision was then theirs to make. It is legal in this country to have an abortion under 20 weeks gestation.

With metta and karuna,
Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

I thought the article was interesting for a couple of reason - I think morality and authority + there relationship are interesting subjects for consideration. I also thought it was interesting because it was from a Thai newspaper.

The opening two sentences are thought provoking and almost provocative.

One expectable reaction better, which I thought you were rightly cautioning against, namely that people will first start to only argue for and against that same stance: "People are against abortion only out of misogyny."

You provided a first possible alternative:

Cittasanto wrote:and what about women who do not support abortion in all cases?

And step by step one can argue back and forth about more diversified and refined over-generalizations as well, taking into account many points of view to argue back and forth from there, and that's how it usually goes, without most people realizing that they have personally little to do with that subject, even though they engaged in that discussion with good intentions first to stop the over-generalizations. That's all I meant to say in a less overt way. I thought that's how it usually easily goes, and I wanted to caution against that. Sorry if I was not very clear.

An abortion is none of my business as long as it's not my baby. If it ain't my baby it's not me who is in the right position to judge.

I'd suggest that's the best solution to this "debate".

Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.
Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

Actually those two separate questions correlate to the two separate lines in the OP.

perkele wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:what expected reaction?

One expectable reaction better, which I thought you were rightly cautioning against, namely that people will first start to only argue for and against that same stance: "People are against abortion only out of misogyny."

You provided a first possible alternative:

Cittasanto wrote:and what about women who do not support abortion in all cases?

And step by step one can argue back and forth about more diversified and refined over-generalizations as well, taking into account many points of view to argue back and forth from there, and that's how it usually goes, without most people realizing that they have personally little to do with that subject, even though they engaged in that discussion with good intentions first to stop the over-generalizations. That's all I meant to say in a less overt way. I thought that's how it usually easily goes, and I wanted to caution against that. Sorry if I was not very clear.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Cittasanto wrote:Actually those two separate questions correlate to the two separate lines in the OP.

Ah, I see.
Whatever.
I think it's getting ever more unlikely that other people are able to follow our communication anymore. I am quite challenged here myself at least. And it's quite irrelevant anyway. I beg you pardon.
So let's better leave it at that.

Cittasanto wrote:Actually those two separate questions correlate to the two separate lines in the OP.

Ah, I see.
Whatever.
I think it's getting ever more unlikely that other people are able to follow our communication anymore. I am quite challenged here myself at least. And it's quite irrelevant anyway. I beg you pardon.
So let's better leave it at that.

I didn't realise there was a specific communication, or that others were following.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Cittasanto wrote:I didn't realise there was a specific communication, or that others were following.

This being a discussion board, the point of it would be communication, I thought. And it should be relevant, and in a way that people can follow it.
Your last post in response to mine didn't seem to be relevant and I had difficulty understanding its purpose. No bad intentions. Still we are off-topic. Not that I want to go on-topic here anyway, but I'll leave it at that and go to my planet. May the force be with you!

Before your particular confusion gets resolved, SDC, I will quickly explain that, I did not notice the quotation marks around the original post (possibly due to my significantly challenged eyesight), but that I now know that it was just a quote from the article, and not Mr Man's opinion as such...

There's one thing resolved, anyway

"To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified."- from the Desanaa Sutta

manas wrote:Before your particular confusion gets resolved, SDC, I will quickly explain that, I did not notice the quotation marks around the original post (possibly due to my significantly challenged eyesight), but that I now know that it was just a quote from the article, and not Mr Man's opinion as such...

There's one thing resolved, anyway

Haha...you know the only reason I pointed it out is because at first I thought the same thing you did, so don't blame your eyesight completely.

While we're at it, perhaps we should also revise the definition of 'election promise' to actually mean, 'something we might do, or not do, once we get into office - if it suits us at the time'

On a more serious note, however, I must admit that I also thought that 'misogyny' could also just mean 'dislike' rather than 'pathological hatred', which is much more extreme. But should we be redefining a word to be in line with it's misuse?

"To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified."- from the Desanaa Sutta